The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to retarget or delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Islamic State (organization) → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

rejected name in move discussion. should be deleted and salted Legacypac (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. @Legacypac: which move discussion? Si Trew (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Islamic state (organisation) is red. Si Trew (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Archive_5#Move and your second comment is another spelling of organization. Legacypac (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Thanks for the ref: it was closed as no consensus to move. And indeed, pace Galileo, and yet it does not move.
2. Blow me down, so it is. Perhaps it should be created as an ((R from alternate spelling)), then. The fact it hasn't been may have some bearing on why these R's have been created haphazardly and not consistently, using the well-tried blunderbuss approach. I still see no sign of those move discussions. Si Trew (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Islamic state which is a type of organization -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Islamic state per anon.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll retarget as suggested. Legacypac (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see how this is at all a misnomer. Many, many redirects would not work as their target articles' titles for one reason or another, so that's a very poor argument for deleting a redirect. And to say that the general political idea of an Islamic state "is a type of organization" is a huge stretch. Is the United States an organization? Sort of, but you'd almost never call it that because it's at least mildly misleading. --BDD (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The United States is a Federal Republic, which is a type of organization, so would you say a Federal Republic is a type of organization? -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, yeah, but if I met someone who had never heard of the US, I would never say, "It's this organization..." and I wouldn't expect it to be labeled as such on an encyclopedia either. That's why I said this was "a huge stretch" and "mildly misleading", but not quite an outright falsehood. --BDD (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it'd be "Federal Republic" that is equivalent to "Islamic State" and not "U.S." if we treat "Islamic State" as title-case capitalization, for which redirects are created for frequently. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep similar to Islamic State (militant group) Jason from nyc (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete as better served with a search result Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Islamic State (Caliphate) → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

both parts of this name are POV and were repeatedly rejected in requested moves Legacypac (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Islamic State, where the modern-day notion of a caliphate is discussed in 2nd para of lede.

@Legacypac: which requested moves? There's Nothing on the target's talk page, and nothing on the redirect's talk page. I note on the target's talk page that it has a moratorium on requested moves until 7 January, but this is not one of the things listed. (I'd consider a bold retarget tantamount to a requested move from the point of view of the moratorium, but there isn't and shouldn't be a moratorium on discussing it.) Si Trew (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to caliphate which is a type of Islamic state -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to caliphate. It makes a suitable redirect for that. Mhhossein (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to caliphate per anon.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This could refer to any type of Islamic state just as easily as it could a Caliphate. It's an X or Y situation. "Islamic State (Caliphate)" is an unlikely search term, and any reader using it would be better served by search results. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per BDD. "Islamic State" (capitalized) refers to the entity calling itself that, not a form of government. Better served by search results. Ivanvector (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a redirect, it's simply alternate capitalization, and is not specific to an entity which calls itself "Islamic State", since it is simply title-case capitalization. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• As nom, I'm good with Delete or Retarget to caliphate. Legacypac (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Better served by a search result rather than guess what the reader wants. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I don't think someone would be looking for the generic term "caliphate" in the unlikely event that this was searched. This is a redirect from a page move, so that's why it is redirected to ISIL. Here's the logic here: last summer, ISIL declared that they wanted to be known as simply "Islamic State," and they also declared themselves a "caliphate." Someone wanted the page moved to simply Islamic State because that was their new official name, but needed a disambiguation and chose "Caliphate." However, there are a few problems with this. 1. "Islamic State" isn't the group's WP:COMMONNAME (it's been widely criticized and condemned). 2. ISIL isn't a caliphate, it's a rebel group. (See Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Criticism of the name "Islamic State" and "caliphate" declaration for details). 3. "Caliphate" shouldn't be capitalized anyway. This entire redirect is a whole lot of wrong, isn't neutral, and therefore we shouldn't keep or retarget it. Tavix |  Talk  05:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. There is consensus not to keep the status-quo. There is no consensus to restore the historic content blues guitar playing, but there is no consensus to delete it outright either; I'll delete it per the outcome of this discussion, but those looking to work on it can have it userfied on request to me or on DRV. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Blues guitar playing → Slide guitar (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Blues guitar → Slide guitar (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Blues guitarist → Slide guitar (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Employing a slide is only one of many musical techniques involved in playing blues on a guitar, and it is not the only musical genre which employs the technique. I suggest this should be retargeted to Blues. Ivanvector (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Blues guitar and Blues guitarist also redirect to Slide guitar. @Ivanvector:, do you want to add those to the nomination? Perhaps surprisingly, Guitar blues is red. Si Trew (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, those should be here too. I'm sure there's a case for creating an article on blues guitar (we have jazz guitar and rhythm guitar for example) but there isn't one currently, and the one that is in the history of blues guitar playing is a start but isn't sufficiently differentiated to not be simply merged into the blues article. Actually, I'll suggest moving "blues guitar playing" to "blues guitar" so that the history is there in case anyone eventually wants to build that article, but leaving it as a redirect to blues for now. Ivanvector (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That makes sense, I'd support that. Si Trew (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't know why I was included in this. I'm okay with whatever as long as the redirects are consistent. --evrik ^(talk) 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because you created the redirect "blues guitarist" on 10 February 2011. No worries. Si Trew (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I used Twinkle for this - it automatically notifies the article creator. Ivanvector (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I picked at random Pianist, cellist, double bassist, timpanist, percussionist (the Kitchen Sink Department, which is on the DAB at Kitchen sink but unreferenced^{[rfd_ks 1]}), trumpeter, trombonist, violinist, accordionist, bassoonist and less randomly Guitarist. Of these, only pianist and guitarist have their own articles, the others redirecting to the instrument. Guitarist has sections Guitarist#Rock and jazz and Guitarist#Other genres (which mentions classical guitarists as a pipe to List of classical guitarists) but nothing on blues. Si Trew (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternatively, I looked at the incoming links to the redirect. Generally, this term is used in articles referring to blues musicians (e.g. "Blind Joe Reynolds was an American singer-songwriter and blues guitarist" - last link piped to the redirect). Absent a specific blues guitar technique article, this can easily refer to the genre. Ivanvector (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom or delete per WP:REDLINK. I agree that this deserves its own topic. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternate proposal: move blues guitar playing -> blues guitar, then restore this revision. That revision doesn't make for a very good article but it is a decent starting point for one, and preserves the revision history. Ivanvector (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:REDLINK. I'm not really sure that an article should be created on this topic, but the one that was redirected shouldn't be it. It was basically a history of the blues with a one sentence definition. Removing the general history, it boils down to WP:NOTDICT. Tavix |  Talk  05:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was deleted by RHaworth (G7). --BDD (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 2024 in the United States → 2015 in the United States (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete. Not useful redirect. I don't think anyone will be searching for "2024 in the United States" as it is 9 years in the future. Looking at the creator's contribution history, it appears that he (or she) has created a number of redirects for future years. I suggest that all those be deleted as well. This page, and other pages can be recreated when the year approaches. Natg 19 (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's an odd WP:CRYSTALBALL redirect, and it's not even pointing to the correct target, which doesn't even exist per ... WP:CRYSTALBALL. Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and delete the others as well. These lists would be better as categories, but that's a different discussion. Ivanvector (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I apologise, because I do not know these redirects may breach the policy of Wikipedia. However, I believe some of them should be useful. I will highly appreciate, if the Admin can keep some of them. Thank you for your time and effort.--Coekon (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:R#DELETE#5. - TheChampionMan1234 10:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was dabify. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Balmont → Konstantin Balmont (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Balmont is a place in France: see the French version of Wikipedia. However at present anyone searching for Balmont is redirected to a page about the Russian poet Konstantin Balmont. AlanD1956 (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. fr:Balmont is a disambiguation page that lists a former commune now absorbed into Seynod, a "place called Reyrieux" (Google translate, what does this mean though?), Florent Balmont, Martin Balmont (a fantasy writer), and the current target. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per Thryduulf. I fixed your interlanguage link, assuming that's what you intended. Lieu-dit is a traditional name for a small geographic area - "Balmont is a small named area in Reyrieux" (my very rough translation). Ivanvector (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify per Thryduulf.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this get's dab'ed, I think Belmont should be added as an entry well.--Lenticel ^(talk) 16:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it should probably be a see also rather than a dab entry. Ivanvector (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• New Las Vegas Arena → Caesars Entertainment Corporation (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

There have been several proposed arenas in Las Vegas in recent years, but none of them have used the name "New Las Vegas Arena", as far as I can find. The project to which it currently links was apparently properly called the Silver State Arena. If this is a descriptive title, it's an unlikely search term, as it's inherently ambiguous and unencylopedic (whatever is new now will not be new in 20 years). Toohool (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Silver State Arena per the nominator's rationale. It may be a plausible ((R from incorrect name)). Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I misunderstood the nominator's rationale. @Toohool: Are you saying that a former working title for Silver State Arena was "New Las Vegas Arena", or that the redirect was created because it was going to be Las Vegas' newest arena? Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because after looking up this term on a popular search engine, the "Silver State Arena" was nowhere in my search results, so I will have to assume that the latter thought of my previously-raised question is true. If this gets proven otherwise during the course of this discussion, please assume that my vote is for "Retarget to Silver State Arena" instead. Steel1943 (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have struck out my statements so that the nominator's request to withdraw this proposal does not seem controversial. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• After further research, I would like to withdraw this nomination. New Las Vegas Arena was created in 2007 as an article about the proposed Harrah's-AEG arena, the same one that is discussed in Caesars Entertainment Corporation. Only recently, it got rewritten to be about a different arena, the MGM-AEG arena. Then someone redirected it to MGM - AEG Arena, and then redirected again to the Caesars Entertainment section. Given the long history of this article name referring to the Harrah's-AEG arena and the apparent erroneous rewrite and subsequent redirection, I would propose to revert it to this version for now. (Silver State Arena is actually an unrelated third project, which I mistook because that article had an incorrect description of its location.) Toohool (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was revert to article. Since the page had previously been kept at AfD, it wasn't a good candidate for WP:D-R. Take to AfD if there are still notability concerns. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Kitty Empire → The Observer (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Not mentioned on target page. Originally listed at MFD for the same reason but moved here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: an old Afd is here but I don't see anything under Miscellany for deletion on this. Did you mean something else by MFD? Ivanvector (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Kitty Empire. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Close and restore article to this revision before the article was redirected by SNUGGUMS (pinging for notification). The old Afd provides more sources which could be used to improve the stub. Ivanvector (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I hadn't seen that AFD at the time I redirected. However, the sources used actually do NOT provide sufficient coverage to warrant an article. This is a piece she wrote herself (self-published sources don't establish notability) while the others only briefly mention her at all. I can't find any significant coverage on her from reliable secondary sources. She's definitely a plausible search term, but doesn't have sufficient coverage to have a separate article. I'm inclined to keep as redirect, though it might be worth a retarget to The Guardian. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, actually the sources in the AfD (specifically these two: [1] and [2]) are reviews by writers who happen to have mentioned that Kitty Empire also wrote a review. A mention can't get much more trivial. However, there are an astounding number of these trivial mentions of her reviews in reliable sources spanning a long time period. This leads me to believe that her work is highly regarded; there is very little written in reliable sources about her but she is nonetheless noteworthy. And I suppose this is an expected consequence of someone working under a pseudonym for 20 years. I think that leaving the stub would be fine in this case even based on the one reliable source. Ivanvector (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so much concerned about wikiarticle length as I am coverage about her. "Highly regarded" ≠ notable. Tons of things are held in high regard, yet don't meet notability criteria. The sources linked are reliable, but those do NOT give significant third-party coverage on her, and she fails WP:ANYBIO since I can't find any other source providing enough coverage about her specifically. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.